It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: reject
a reply to: turbonium1
peer reviews - sasquatch genome project
like the Bigfoot itself, the study is also highly controversial.
It basically says it's DNA shows affinity to human AND chimpanzee along with other primates.
So this DNA sequence doesn't discount a species of large bili/Bondo chimpanzee that may grow a lot bigger in the Pacific Northwest geographic location.
PLUS, if it has indeed hybridized with homo sapiens presently or in the past, it may have become even bigger like what has been observed of the liger which is bigger than its lion and tiger parents.
I think this just about wraps it up for this thread
originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: reject
The Billi-Bondo….represents Human natural evolution not Bigfoots....current Humanity AND Bigfoot have been genetically intervened with....the Billi-Bondo is what we SHOULD BE right now....they are hunters adding animal fat to their diet of the little ones which stops the brains synovial lining from getting inflamed when it pushes the growing skull....forcing the skull to grow bigger accommodating progressively bigger and bigger brains.....we were close to this when we were "adjusted-or stepped forward" geneticlly.
originally posted by: reject
a reply to: Nickn3
Oh ok I confused the Martin case with that of another very young missing child.
missing child
Oh ok I confused the Martin case with that of another very young missing child.
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: reject
The Billi-Bondo….represents Human natural evolution not Bigfoots....current Humanity AND Bigfoot have been genetically intervened with....the Billi-Bondo is what we SHOULD BE right now....they are hunters adding animal fat to their diet of the little ones which stops the brains synovial lining from getting inflamed when it pushes the growing skull....forcing the skull to grow bigger accommodating progressively bigger and bigger brains.....we were close to this when we were "adjusted-or stepped forward" geneticlly.
Evolution is another issue altogether, which I don't accept as true, but not from the Bigfoot, or Bondo arguments, which are still inconclusive, and lack valid evidence of their OWN existence! To argue that a non-existent, or not proven to exist creature, is evidence against, or for, something also unproven to exist, called 'evolution', takes it way beyond realistic discussion.
By 'evolution', I mean the specific argument that a species transforms itself into a completely new, different species. The so-called evidence for it, doesn't work. DNA is shared by every species on Earth, that doesn't mean they all came from some sort of ancient 'ancestor' species. We share over 90% of DNA with chimps, and both species exist at the same time, and as far back as we know, for thousands of years, at least.
Both species are the same species over that time, just like all the millions of other species are still the same. And we all share DNA, as well.
To claim every species on Earth today, is continually 'evolving' into new, different species, is certainly an extraordinary claim. It is said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but to me, there is either proof, or no proof.
So when I see that the millions of different species on Earth, are the exact same species as before, which is at least a few thousand years.....this is proof that every species is the same as before, and there are simply no indications of them 'continually evolving' into different species.
That evidence is millions of different species, each species having thousands to billions of the same species living at the same time, every species coming from earlier generations, which nearly doubles that total, and the second generation adding nearly double the amount of THAT generation, and so on, for every other generation before that, over thousands of years.
Obviously that would amount to at least a few quadrillion (which is a thousand trillion) examples of evidence against any sort of 'continual evolution' into another species, and perhaps the greatest amount of evidence for a single case, in all human history.
I'm aware of the cases for evolution, which all refer to other research supporting evolution, which refer to even earlier research supporting it. That's classic 'evolution' in a nutshell. Connect something to another thing, and back to another thing, and so on......none of which ever prove anything at all, in the first place. Piling up papers that all support evolution, is just trickery. A false premise backed by more false premises, which support more false premises, is just a shell game, where nobody can find the ball, in this case, nobody can find the actual evidence.
There's much more about the issue, but I'm off topic, so that's all I'll say about it.
As for Bigfoot, etc, the evolution arguments are not relevant.
So back to the issue...
originally posted by: reject
a reply to: carsforkids
Some seem to be sentimental towards the Bigfoot.
I, for one, find gorillas tugging at my heartstrings when they look behind and upwards; no idea why.
However, native Americans describe them as habitually abducting people especially women and children.
I think one of the reasons is to mate that's why victims' pants look like they were carefully removed.
They may have difficulty distinguishing between human genders and they have to visually inspect human genitals.
The kids, I suspect, is a tender delicacy.
Chimpanzees are one of the most brutal animals around.
The shoes? Maybe they're fascinated they don't have toes or they want to wear them.
Odds are a lot of these cases are bigfoot's handiwork while the rest are mundane in nature.
A long time ago, I read somewhere that dense forests make their own weather so I'm really not surprised about the sudden atmospheric conditions in those places.
There are innumerable instances of almastys surprised in the act of picking cherries, plums, apples, pears, watermelons and other fruits, often still green and inedible for man. Its food also is composed of herbs (wild sorrel, bugloss), acorns, nuts, hemp seeds, vegetables (cucumbers, tomatoes, and onions), corn, and red peppers. But, it also likes to eat frogs and lizards, squirrels, rats and mice.
Intrigued by its periodic visits to an enormous empty barn, the eyewitness decided to spy on the almasty: “[...] it jumped effortlessly onto a very high beam, extended its arm in a familiar gesture, pulled a bat out from under the roofing, sat down on the beam, gutted the animal and ate it [...]. Subsequently, I saw it do the same thing several times. Normally, it ate one single bat, sometimes two, but never more” (168k).
“The almastys eat dead horses and other dead animals” (19k).
Among the foods of animal origin there very often is found a strange and unusual item – the placenta of domestic animals (and thus, in all probability, placentae from females of wild species as well).
originally posted by: Caver78
And while we certainly do have some decent sized basket ball players?
For the general population the numbers just don't add up on the continents.